I would imagine that this sort of thing is a matter of convincing the rest of the scientific community, so any sort of change would probably have to fall under the same scrutiny.

The latest news is that a group of scientists is gathering to discuss the admission of 12 new objects into the solar system, smaller than Pluto. They have for the moment dubbed these "Plutons".

Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Ceres
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
Pluto
Charon
Xena, Warrior Princess.

Whoever can come up with the cleverest mnemonic for that wins a trophy.

(Note: Ceres, Charon and Xena are the three the International Astronomical Union want to add now. They may add yet more by the time all is said and done.)

Yep, it's on the front page of my local paper. Three objects: Ceres, Charon, and 2003UB313 are the front runners to become planets of the solar system.

And then there are a dozen more candidates ranging from asteroids to Kuiper Belt Objects which could bump it up to a total of 24.

At least we managed to get a clearer definition of "planet" now. It has been, what, centuries before we agreed on a good definition?

2003UB313 should definitely get a new name... "Anvil" perhaps >_>.

Popular belief is that it will be called Persephone.

Likely Proserpine if we're sticking to the Roman names standard.

Then why did you bother reading this thread?

What a fucking tard.

I hope Pluto does lose it's planetary status. I mean, the sooner we get rid of it, the sooner we'll be able to fix everything we've taught everyone all throughout gradeschool...

I mean, everything we taught the kids that cared about it.

If they were sticking to Roman anything, we wouldn't have Xena. On top of that, why are they not using gods? They're using Persephone, Charon, and Ceres. Sure they're mythological figures, but none of them are gods. What about Juno, Minerva, Bacchus, and Vulcan? Okay, maybe naming a planet Vulcan isn't the smartest of ideas...

What. Ceres is just as much a god as Venus is.

Besides, Ceres has been Ceres for over two hundred years; giving it a new name now would just be silly.

Juno already has an asteroid named for her, like Ceres, but it's not quite big enough for anyone to start considering it a planet yet. Minerva also has one, but it's named "Pallas" instead. =p

I just wonder why the scientific community doesn't just adopt the Star Trek methodology of planetary classification. It's already pretty much complete, after all, so very little work would need to be done other than baggin' and taggin'.

It doesn't because the Star Trek classification of planets is really arbitrary when it comes to assigning things; just pick a letter and go. Scientists like things a little more precise than that.

It would also be really lame.

I was actually reading an article that was suggesting a categorization system similar in style to the ones they use for stars. With the colors/size scheme (you know, red giant, white dwarf, etc.).

I heard a guy on NPR today say something interesting, that counting planets is really the least interesting question in the whole debate. That there is a lot of interesting shit up there that we should study no matter what way we want to classify it.

However, it is sometimes a good idea to do a bit of bookkeeping every once in a while after making all these discoveries and breakthroughs.

Wanting to downgrade Pluto but in the meantime upgrade (what is now) 3 smaller worlds into planets just doesn't make any logic to me...

I think my favourite part in the article I read was how they were calling one planet Xena and its moon Gabrielle. I mean, someone in that room has to realise how horribly geeky it sounds. Surely there are more appealing names instead ones from horrible 90s television.

I actually couldnt care less if they added the two further ones, UB313 and Charon to the system. But that one in between Mars and Jupiter? Ceres? That's retarded.

I was thinking of someone else. My mistake.

I was unaware of these asteroids. However, I do find it silly that the only goddess to be given a planet isn't the queen (that'd be too easy) it's the symbol of Valentine's Day and that the rest get to be asteroids.

But wait, isn't Charon a moon?

Yes, Charon is a moon of pluto, but now with these new proposed definition of what makes a planet, Charon would be given planetary status. Wikipedia has a nice article about it if you want to look it up.

What does a planet being bright and gold have to do with it being called Venus. Is it a correlation with beauty?